State ex rel. Hall v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Hall v. Industrial Commission

685 N.E.2d 1245, 80 Ohio St. 3d 289

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 19, 1997

DocketNo. 95-903

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 685 N.E.2d 1245 (State ex rel. Hall v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Hall v. Industrial Commission, 685 N.E.2d 1245, 80 Ohio St. 3d 289 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals vacated the commission’s order and directed it to issue a new order finding that claimant continued to be permanently and totally disabled. Upon review, we affirm that judgment, but do so for reasons other than those relied upon by that court.

In State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929, issued subsequent to the lower court’s decision in this case, we reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. In Draganic, we held that the commission is not required to extend permanent total disability compensation beyond the date specified in an interlocutory permanent total disability order.

This leaves us to address the commission’s evidentiary defense of its order. Upon so doing, we find that the commission’s order not only does not meet State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245, but also that claimant qualifies for relief consistent with State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.

[292]*292The commission’s order clearly defies Noll — a deficiency that is prerequisite to any consideration of Gay relief. The commission’s decision was based on claimant’s age, a factor which the commission felt made claimant amenable to retraining. Age, however, is immaterial if claimant lacks the intellectual capacity to learn. The claimant has a sixth-grade education and is illiterate. His work history consists entirely of extremely heavy physical labor that is now well beyond his physical capacities. There is no explanation as to how or for what jobs claimant is able to retrain.

These factors not only compel a finding of Noll insufficiency, but the issuance of relief pursuant to Gay as well. Since it is almost impossible to conceive of a sedentary position for which an illiterate person with a background in heavy labor is qualified, we find that a return of the cause to the commission for further consideration would be futile.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed, but for the reasons stated above.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The court of appeals vacated the commission’s order and directed it to issue a new order finding that claimant continued to be permanently and totally disabled. Upon review, we affirm that judgment, but do so for reasons other than those relied upon by that court.

In State ex rel. Draganic v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 461, 663 N.E.2d 929, issued subsequent to the lower court’s decision in this case, we reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. In Draganic, we held that the commission is not required to extend permanent total disability compensation beyond the date specified in an interlocutory permanent total disability order.

This leaves us to address the commission’s evidentiary defense of its order. Upon so doing, we find that the commission’s order not only does not meet State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245, but also that claimant qualifies for relief consistent with State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666.

[292]*292The commission’s order clearly defies Noll — a deficiency that is prerequisite to any consideration of Gay relief. The commission’s decision was based on claimant’s age, a factor which the commission felt made claimant amenable to retraining. Age, however, is immaterial if claimant lacks the intellectual capacity to learn. The claimant has a sixth-grade education and is illiterate. His work history consists entirely of extremely heavy physical labor that is now well beyond his physical capacities. There is no explanation as to how or for what jobs claimant is able to retrain.

These factors not only compel a finding of Noll insufficiency, but the issuance of relief pursuant to Gay as well. Since it is almost impossible to conceive of a sedentary position for which an illiterate person with a background in heavy labor is qualified, we find that a return of the cause to the commission for further consideration would be futile.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed, but for the reasons stated above.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

685 N.E.2d 1245, 80 Ohio St. 3d 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-hall-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack